The problem with profilers...

[kyleb]

And they were never -intended- to be evidence.

And that's all the more reason to disregard Cappuccino's insistence that "Profiles should be seen the same as luminol tests and sniffer dogs."

manipulating the media and interviews in appropriate ways

By what standards do you deem such manipulation to be appropriate?

 

[reedus23]

Profiles aren't evidence at all, they're guesses. They're often very accurate guesses when made by people with vast understanding of criminal behavior, but guesses aren't rightly ever evidence regardless of how well educated they are.

Before I go further, I think there is some common ground here on our views/feelings about profilers. Having said that, I also want to make sure we are using the term in the same sense. Profiles have been used as evidence and profilers have been endorsed by various courts as experts. I think I said it earlier, if not, I'll say it again. Personally, I do have a problem with their being admitted as experts because it is more of an art than a science if you ask me. So I question if they SHOULD be evidence.

 

[reedus23]

Of course I did. Did you read the Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin which Reedus and I are discussing? If so, I'm curious know if you see any problems in how Douglas's tactics affected that case.

I quite honestly don't know enough about that case to say one way or the other. If you're asking me based off of reading just that one report, it seems to me that the bigger problem was with how LE utilized the profile.

 

[Ina Cognito]

I have too many things to more carefully consider and weigh before I superglue myself to a suspect theory -- and perhaps I never will.

I am also not aware of every potential suspect in the case, as I am sure there are people who fit the profile and would make spectacular suspects, who were never identified or questioned by police.

That said, Hobbs was actually not foremost in my mind after reading Douglas' profile, as I was not led by the nose toward that conclusion.

I totally agree with you on the above. I had my own thoughts toward a profile and was pleasantly surprised to find they aligned with Douglas. I've met both Douglas and Ressler, took a seminar with Ressler, they're both very impressive men. I have not seen a profile from Ressler on this case? If there is one I would very much like to read it.

I too feel the actual suspect in this case was very far from law enforcement in this case and most likely never questioned nor approached. I do feel it was someone the children were either familiar with and respected that adult's authority or an adult they would be expected to obey enough for them to become easy victims. As for satanic aspects of this crime? There weren't any IMO. All of the satanic "involvement" was thoughts from the investigators and things they deduced based on their number one suspect. There is nothing at the crime scene, on the children or ever uncovered that was satanic in nature. It was all a part of the satanic paranoia that much of the country was suffering from at the time.

Hobbs is intriguing in this case simply due to hinky things and the hair. He should definitely be investigated just based on those things. Is there a strong case against him? No, not really, only suspicion. Relying on the whole "Hobbs family secret" isn't any better than the false confession from Jessie. Personally, I'm not so sure he had the intellect or sophistication to pull this off and leave such a pristine crime scene. No, this was someone who had previously killed IMO Someone familiar enough with investigative topics. IMO a person like Hobbs doesn't suddenly decide to commit such a crime on such a grand scale (three at once.) This IMO demonstrates a suspect that was confidant in what they were doing. The only way I see it as Hobbs is a possible rage accident against Stevie that left the other two boys as collateral damage. No, I see an organized, experienced killer, either known to the boys or an adult they would see in an authoritative light that would be able to exert emotional control over them. I do not see this as having more than one unsub. I feel there would have been more damage done to the boys had there been more than one unsub. The lack of semen and/or considerable evidence of sexual abuse of the boys is also interesting ( I do accept the postmortem animal damage suggestion) It leaves you questioning what the point of the murder was as, barring severe mental illness, there should be something the unsub wanted from the situation. (And before the mental illness finger is pointed at Damian, it doesn't fit, I'm writing of a psychotic person who also would have left an unorganized scene so....) It is really an unusual crime IMO Okay, I want to stop rambling...

 

[Ina Cognito]

Before I go further, I think there is some common ground here on our views/feelings about profilers. Having said that, I also want to make sure we are using the term in the same sense. Profiles have been used as evidence and profilers have been endorsed by various courts as experts. I think I said it earlier, if not, I'll say it again. Personally, I do have a problem with their being admitted as experts because it is more of an art than a science if you ask me. So I question if they SHOULD be evidence.

This is sticky. It's important to look past the profile and at the profiler. In the case of Douglas he is an educated FBI agent very well versed in criminal psychology. Just as a psychiatrist or psychologist can give an expert opinion in a court of law so obviously can LE that are well qualified. As someone else said the danger is in trying to fit a suspect puzzle piece into the profile puzzle.... testifying as to an agent's opinion of what is typical or not typical of an organized vs unorganized offender or a crime of passion vs one that is not can be relied upon IMO No profile will every perfectly match a suspect, I've seen some very close profiles that helped find a suspect but using that profile as evidence? No, I don't think that should be done. Can good profilers testify as to the typical or non typical signs or behaviors in a crime scene? This is tough... I think yes, BUT I think it should be established and described in that testimony what a profile is and is not. Medical Examiners do not always know what exactly happened to cause a death but they still can and do give an expert opinion as to what they think happened.

 

[Ausgirl]

By what standards do you deem such manipulation to be appropriate?

By the standards under which law enforcement would deem it fit to use, when necessary to do so.

There's a lot of information and a ton of documentation going back a century or so on this practise out there, I'm sure you could find some if you looked.

 

[kyleb]

And what about others manipulating the media and interviews, are you happy to see them do whatever they deem appropriate in such regards as well?

 

[Ausgirl]

And what about others manipulating the media and interviews, do you leave that to them to decide what is appropriate as well?

...what? What has this to do with profiling?

 

[kyleb]

Well when you spoke of profiles being used "to help flush suspects out by manipulating the media and interviews in appropriate ways" I became curious as to by what standards you deem such manipulation to be appropriate, both for law enforcement and otherwise. So while you've said you defer to law enforcement to do as they like in such regards, I'm still left to wonder if you apply that same standard on this matter to others.

 

[Ausgirl]

... what? I think I need another coffee before I attempt this.

I don't think my personal opinion matters in any significant way to either situation at all, to be frank, but perhaps I'll attempt an answer once more properly caffeinated.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

... what? I think I need another coffee before I attempt this.

I don't think my personal opinion matters in any significant way to either situation at all, to be frank, but perhaps I'll attempt an answer once more properly caffeinated.

I think it will take more than regular caffeine.. just sayin.

 

[Ina Cognito]

I think it will take more than regular caffeine.. just sayin.

:floorlaugh:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'd like to point out just a few things about TH that some may not know. He was responsible for the death of his brother-in-law at the time, Jackie Hicks, Jr. He shot JH, Jr. and the wound eventually led to JH, Jr.'s death. Since the death occurred more than a year after the attack, TH was not charged with murder. Although the attack on JH, Jr. occurred after the murders of Christopher, Michael and Steven, IMO it shows TH's propensity for violence.

Earlier, he attacked Mildred French (back in 1982), which, according to her Pasdar deposition was, at least in part, caused by the abuse of wife and child that seems to be part of TH's personality.

Add in his stint in a slaughter house as a teenager and, IMO, you have someone much more capable of these murders than a troubled teen, especially when his obvious familiarity with the boys (and the fact that he was a "trusted authority figure" to them) is considered, too. Pam even mentioned this in her Pasdar declaration which includes the following:

Then, Terry immediately said that because he had worked in the slaughterhouse and had butchered animals, "I could skin a man alive, I could cut him up." It blew my mind that he would make such grotesque comments after my sister had told him that she thought he might be involved in the Murders. I had never heard him discuss the slaughterhouse in that sort of way, nor had I heard him discuss how he could cut up human beings. It came completely out of the blue. I could see that Jo Lynn was also appalled that Terry would talk about his ability to cut up human beings while we were talking about whether he was involved in the Murders.

I'm simply pointing out these established facts in case someone is unaware of them as they are not "proclaimed" from the rooftops as is "Exhibit 500." So, IMO, TH is perfectly capable of the violence evidenced by these murders. (There's more out there about his violent capabilities, but I'll stop here.) Given that, in a case of a child being murdered, the perpetrator is more often than not a family member or close family friend, I'd say that the failure of the wmpd to investigate or even consider as a suspect TH is highly suspicious.

 

[Ausgirl]

CR, you make a good case for Hobbs featuring on the suspect list for sure. Thanks for the info, some of which I did not know.

Taking another direction.. I was researching crimes in which kids have been hogtied and drowned.. and found an older case, in which a group of kids aged 10, 11 and 13 (IIRC) hogtied a playmate with his own shoelaces and threw him in the river, where he promptly drowned. I'll hunt up the link when I can be bothered.. very disturbing stuff. Anyhow, just a point against Douglas' statement about teenagers. Even Douglas (whom I greatly admire) is not infallible - there's many crimes of this nature committed by kids on other kids.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

CR, you make a good case for Hobbs featuring on the suspect list for sure. Thanks for the info, some of which I did not know.

Taking another direction.. I was researching crimes in which kids have been hogtied and drowned.. and found an older case, in which a group of kids aged 10, 11 and 13 (IIRC) hogtied a playmate with his own shoelaces and threw him in the river, where he promptly drowned. I'll hunt up the link when I can be bothered.. very disturbing stuff. Anyhow, just a point against Douglas' statement about teenagers. Even Douglas (whom I greatly admire) is not infallible - there's many crimes of this nature committed by kids on other kids.

BBM

The key to this scenario is that they killed a playmate, not a stranger. Although I readily accept that no one is infallible, it seems to me that, when and if teenagers kill, it's usually other teenagers or adults (esp. gang violence) not younger children (unless accidentally as in a drive-by). I'm not saying that it's impossible, and I'm sure that someone can find an example. I'm just saying that it's not the norm. Usually, when a child under 12 is killed, it's a family member or family friend that committed the crime. That's why the Jon Benet case is so intriguing to so many, and why so many won't dismiss their initial suspicion of the parents!

I've found this article which includes the following:

Because they are still more physically and emotionally dependent than teenagers, children of middle childhood (like young children) are killed most often by family members (61 percent of the perpetrators) (figure 8) (see foot-note 4, page 4).

Those who kill children in middle childhood are the oldest of all child killers, with more than half (52 percent) older than age 30 (figure 9).

Although a teenaged killer or killers who is/are stranger/s is possible, the second quote (above) makes it appear less likely. BTW, the article discusses three "stages" of childhood: young children (0 - 5), middle childhood (6 - 11) and teenagers (12 - 17). It's a very lengthy article, but interesting!

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Faith helps slain boy's family face abiding grief

Dr. L. D. Hutt said the background of the situation "implies a familiarity with the area . . . not just the physical knowledge, but also that this was a popular place for kids to go.

"He knew where he was going, and he knew the purpose," Hutt said.

Hutt said he has no official connection with the case and has not spoken to police about it.

Odds are, he said, the killer was someone who knew at least one of the boys, though was not necessarily a long-term friend.

The killer, if there was one killer, he said, may have been "posing as a police official" or some other authority figure. "That would imply planning," he said.

But, Hutt said, "this does not have the signs of a crime by a mad genius. . . .; he's not a real brilliant individual," he said. The crime showed premeditation, he said, but the crime scene seems to indicate a disorganized person, someone possibly with neurological damage.

There is a good chance that the person has a criminal record, though possibly for minor violations.

If not detected, the person will "almost certainly kill again," Hutt said. However, he said, the killer's efforts to flee will likely "be pretty obvious . . . not highly planned out."

Hutt said the killer probably left a lot of evidence at the scene, but that evidence may have been degraded by the water and by anyone coming upon the scene accidentally.

The killer, he said, would probably not meet the legal definition of insanity, since he showed planning and attempts, however clumsy, to cover up his crime.

Lastly, he said, the killer probably had a low-level job, and likely had some contact with children on his job.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/new...slain-boys-family-face-abiding-grief/?print=1

_______________________

He is a psychologist and has been used as an expert witness. I thought it was interesting considering Echols mental health illnesses.

 

[Ausgirl]

Can't see Echols posing as a police officer. It is an interesting suggestion, however. And I think, going by the footage I have seen, there might be quite a few folks 'round those parts who aren't geniuses.

Interesting, the part about working with kids... I wonder if he was suggesting a pedophile?

Thanks for that, U. I'm hoping we can end up with a little collection of professional profiles here, it's fascinating to see where they correlate and don't.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Can't see Echols posing as a police officer. It is an interesting suggestion, however. And I think, going by the footage I have seen, there might be quite a few folks 'round those parts who aren't geniuses.

Interesting, the part about working with kids... I wonder if he was suggesting a pedophile?

Thanks for that, U. I'm hoping we can end up with a little collection of professional profiles here, it's fascinating to see where they correlate and don't.

He said one killer and there were three.


The killer, if there was one killer, he said, may have been "posing as a police official" or some other authority figure. "That would imply planning," he said.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/new...slain-boys-family-face-abiding-grief/?print=1

 

[Ausgirl]

Yup - and if you also take into account the part about work and contact with children - it points to a single perp with an unhealthy interest in kiddies.

Like, say.. that convicted and violent pedo, who was sleeping with the wife of a local police officer. And then inserted himself heavily into the investigation while regaling LE with lurid details of child sex crimes he'd committed... and whose alibi is his wife - a woman who knew he was a child molester but apparently didn't mind.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Let's not forget that, at the time of the murders, Hobbs drove an ice cream truck. Granted, not one that sold directly to children but one that delivered to others for sale. However, there is an outside chance that this truck might draw children to him. Also, there's the stories from Pam's sisters about sexual abuse of both Amanda and Steven.

Another pet theory of mine is that TH had begun to "hit on" Steven's friends and Steven might have lashed out at TH in an attempt to protect his friends. I know it's speculation, but . . .